Go somewhere else with these flash in the pan new movie attraction. Perhaps create an entirely new 5th park just for them. Otherwise, I'll have to cancell my June trip to Walt Disney World of Pixar.
Now you see, it's talk like that which really annoys me. People who think that it's a travesty to put Disney characters in *gasp* a Disney park.
Like it or not, some of these recent movies can actually fit within some of the established locations of the parks. Of course, there are obviously movie attractions that are either poorly placed and often poorly executed. Laugh Floor and Stitch instantly come to mind. With Tommorowland's whole shift to science fiction, Stitch actually can fit in, but the way they put him in was a rather crap one(Stitch Encounter at HKDL on the other hand, is far superior and could actually add to the whole transportation hub/World on the Move aspect of Tommorowland, considering it's setting in Tommorowland's Transportation Hub)
For all those times people say that movie attractions should just be shoved into MGM, I'd agree with them on Monsters Inc. The thing is that you can't just shove everything into there with no thought put into it. The attractions in MGM all tend to have one thing in common: being placed in the context of the movie-making process/Entertainment biz or in the (now ruined by hat) Hollywood that never was theme. As a Comedy Club theme, Laugh Floor would work fine in MGM. It could even get rid of Sounds Dangerous and there we go.
For all the people who say that animated films should just be limited to Fantasyland (speaking more of Disneyland here), you've got to realize that not all animated movies can fit in the Fantasyland theme(European Fairy Tales and the general fantasy fair feel). The reason that Fantasyland consisted of the animated films early on in the game,if you think about it, is that the animated films at the time mostly all could fit into Fantasyland's theme, though package film segments such as Pecos Bill and Fantasia's Rite of Spring managed to find their way into Frontierland and the Primeval World diorama respectively. Jungle Book was really the first deviation from that, being in more of the Adventureland feel. It didn't go much beyond that really until the 90's when more Adventureland-ish stuff came out more frequently(in addition to more Fantasyland fitting material). Then they started abusing the Sci-Fi genre starting with Atlantis and considering the sci-fi direction Tommorowland went into, that's when the whole "Fantasyland East" talk started and where we are today. Though unlike Stitch, Buzz, or Monsters, Meet the Robinsons actually takes place in the damn future, thus actually fitting into the original freaking point of Tommorowland as predicting the future rather then just a place for Disney's science-fiction stuff(though Treasure Planet and Atlantis would also fit this, though more into the Discoveryland setup Paris has got)
Then theres Pixar's popularity leading to more in-park representation making people go all "ZOMG! Nemo's gone into a pavilion based on sealife and coral reef environments. Pixar's taking over Epcot with a SINGLE pavilion!"
"ZOMG! Two Pixar movies took over a single building complex in WDW's Tommorowland while over half of the whole area remains the way it is! More liek Pixarland, M I RITE?"
"ZOMG! They're reviving the subs ride by putting Nemo in with talks of Incredibles Peoplemover revival to be coming after! Tommorowland's becoming a Computer Generated World on the Move!"
"ZOMG! California Adventure and Disney Studios Paris are being over run with Pixar based attractions! No wait, that's actually somewhat of an improvement..."
I can go on and on about this. And I'm not saying this about all purists, I just want to post my arguments and be funny at the same time. As for the whole character thing, despite my support of characters in the parks, I'd also like to see some original material in the parks too. At least strike a decent balance between the two.
Yeah, figured as much that the one who says everybody's overreacting about something is seen as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
